Re: Mecc titles

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Supertimer writes ...
>> 
> .... 
>> Prior to 1997, an MIT student got away with putting commercial
>> software on his school ftp server because he claimed he did not
>> make a profit off it and it was not stealing.
>> 
>> In 1997, President Clinton signed into law a measure that
>> plugged the loophole.  Now it is a federal crime to make available
>> copyrighted software whatever its commercial value and even
>> if the offender does not make a profit off doing so.  Also, it
>> is not merely a case of the copyright holder suing the infringer
>> anymore.  The Justice Department has the power to push a
>> federal case against the offender.
>> 
>> And that's just what happened.  For the first time, someone
>> has been convicted of just making available commercial
>> software on his site:
>> 
>> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/20/internet.theft/index.htm
>
>     This link gives a "Not Found" error.

Drop the index.htm from the end and try it.  It has
been reported that this fixes it.  CNN must have
changed web server software.

>> 
>> Remember, what this law does is give the US government
>> the power to enforce the law regardless of what the
>> copyright holder says or what the infringer profits from
>> making software available.  It allows the government to
>> enforce the letter of the law regardless.  It also tightens
>> the definition of piracy.
>
>     For sure, it would be worthwhile to look through this law.
>
>     However, it should be obvious that, in order to prosecute someone for a
>violation, there needs to be a violation. (If there is not, you just end up
>wasting resources and looking silly.)
>
>     If Apple does not mind that Emulation Net offers their IIgs ROMs for
>downloading and use with Bernie, then, really, you have no violation.

But the new regulation wraps itself around the letter of
the law.  It starts with the premise that the copyright
holder does NOT want such distribution to happen.  So,
the government can prosecute if copyright software is
distributed.

Only when a site goes out and asks the copyright
holder to change the distribution license in writing does
this change under the current regulation.

So, unless the copyright holder says otherwise in
writing (as in getting their legal department to draft up
a "freeware" declaration) distributing the software is
considered piracy and can be prosecuted by the
government.